1. ' C.M.A. No,1669 of 2011 ' TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM.--- This is an urgent application for hearing of the following applications which is granted.
2. ' C.M.A. No:1670 of 2011 ' This application has been filed under section 148 read with section 151, C.P.C. By the petitioner praying for enlargement of one year period of time for compliance of compromise order dated 10- 3-2010.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in spite of the best efforts the petitioners has failed to arrange such place in the vicinity for removing his small cottage factory with machinery in the rented premises and on the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner misunderstood the consent order dated 10-3-2010 and construed that the order was for continuance of tenancy on enhanced rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rented premises where the petitioner has a small cottage industry is the only source of income for the petitioner and his family and therefore further time, may be granted for vacating the premises. It was further argued that although order dated 10-3-2010 was a consent order; however, due to the peculiar situation and on humanitarian grounds this Court could grant further time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. In support of his contention he relied upon the following cases:
(1) Amin Badshah v. Nargis Saleem Ahmed (2000 SCMR 1641),
(2) Bayer AG and another v. Pharmedic (Pvt.) Ltd. (2003 CLC 1548),
(3) Mst. Naseema Salahuddin and 2 others v. Mst. Daulat Fatima and 4 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 103). (4) Shabbir Ahmed and another v. Zahoor Bibi and others (PLD 2004 SC 790) (5) Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 2004 SC 801), (6) Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Zahid v. MRs, Nilofer Akhtar and another (2004 SCMR 96 and (7) lzzat Baig Awan v. Habib Bank Ltd.
4. (2004 SCMR 98).
5. ' Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has seriously opposed the grant of this application. Learned counsel has argued that there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the consent order dated 10-3-2010, the said order is more than fair as nearly one year time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the rented premises. Since the passing of the said consent order the petitioner has never raised any objection and since the time has now come to hand over the possession of the rented premises, the petitioner for mala fide and ulterior reasons has filed this application belatedly to gain some additional time. The learned counsel has argued that this court cannot grant further time without the consent of respondent No,3 as it would amount to modification of the consent order passed by this court. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon the case of Khawaia Muhammad Razzak v. Dr. Sultan Mehmood Ghouri and another 2007 SCM R 1866.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the relevant record and the case-laws cited by the respective counsel. The essence of the consent order dated 10-3-2010 was that the petitioner(Tenant) would vacate and hand over the rented premises to the respondent No,3 (Landlord) on 2-4-2011. The Order dated 10-3-2010 is a consent order which is unambiguous and in clear terms stipulates that the petitioner will peacefully hand over the rented premises to respondent No,3 on 2-4-2011. More than reasonable time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. It is my opinion that respondent No,3 could not be burdened due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain alternative premises within the stipulated time. On one hand it has been argued that the petitioner was looking for alternative premises and on the other hand it has been argued that the said order was misunderstood which shows the malafide on the part of the petitioner. It was not the case of the petitioner that due to the wilful acts or deeds on the part of respondent No,3 the petitioner was not able to hand over the rented premises to respondent No,3.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner has not been able to Satisfy me as under what provision of law further time could be A granted by this Court.
8. ' In the case of Amin Badshah (supra) heard by the apex Courts was against a consent order, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petition was not competent against the consent order and was liable to be dismissed. Although, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its own wisdom did grant three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the rented premises. The observations made by the Hon'ble apex Court does not support the case of the petitioner.
9. ' In the case of Bayer AG and another (supra) heard by the Lahore High Court in first appeal the court had granted extension of time for depositing Court Fee on the ground that no prejudice 'would cause to the other side. This case has no relevancy to the present case.
10. ' In the case of Mst. Naseema Salahuddin and 2 others (supra) decided by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court was in respect of a suit for specific performance whereby time granted for payment of balance sale consideration was extended on the ground that only preliminary decree had been passed by the trial Court and no final decree was passed. The facts and the applicable law in the above case have no nexus with the present case.
11. ' In the .Case of Shabbir Ahmed and another (supra) the honourable Supreme Court considered the question of extending time for payment of balance sale consideration in appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of contract. The facts and the governing law are totally distinguishable to the present case in hand which is arising out of rent proceedings where a consent order has been passed.
12. ' In the case of Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Zahid (supra), is only a leave granting order of the apex Court on the point of granting further time for deposit of payment of balance sale consideration in matter arising from suit fdr specific performance, which case is totally distinguishable from the present case.
13. ' For the discussion and reasons as aforesaid and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Amin Badshah, no case for further extension of time has been made out, all other case-laws relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant and are distinguishable; accordingly the application is dismissed.
14. C.M.A. No: 1670/2012: ' This C.M.A. Has been filed under section 151, C.P.C. For suspension of the orders and Judgment of learned Rent Controller and the learned District Judge Central Karachi till the disposal of the C.M.A.
15. No,1670. Since the above said application has been dismissed for the reasons as aforesaid this application has become infructous and is accordingly dismissed.